Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:44:27 02/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 29, 2000 at 12:47:06, Amir Ban wrote: >On February 28, 2000 at 22:36:47, Terry Presgrove wrote: > >>On February 28, 2000 at 22:06:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 28, 2000 at 21:55:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>On February 28, 2000 at 20:30:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 28, 2000 at 20:25:29, Derrick Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At the this week in chess site, a letter is displayed by michael Adams >>>>>>explaining the circumstances surounding the Deep blue Scandal, It appears that >>>>>>Michael Adams is attempting to shift the blame away from himself, on to the >>>>>>victims, which was Clearly Amir Ban and his partner Shay. I believe this only >>>>>>adds insult to injury, Mr. Adams ought to be ashamed of himself. >>>>> >>>>>Here is the "open letter": >>>>>http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/adams.html >>>> >>>>It sounds to me like Adams was simply "caught in the middle of a bad >>>>situation." It doesn't sound (to me) as though he had any real sort of >>>>agenda to cause a problem... I think that the organizers simply had way too >>>>much incompetence to let the event run smoothly... This kind of nonsense was >>>>inevitable... >>> >>>I think you are right, but I think that Mr. Adams now blames Amir and Shay. A >>>typical example of "blaming the victom" if I ever saw one. I don't think Adams >>>is at fault either. But I do fault his derision of Amir, who was (I think) >>>stuck in the middle far worse than anyone else -- especially considering the >>>outcome. >> >> >> I agree. While Adam's may not be at fault for the forfeit he certainly is >> is not a victim. That solely belongs to the DJ team and computer chess fans >> everywhere. Mig's failure to notify Amir/Shay of an impending forfiet was >> inexcusable. I am not even sure the time sequence of the events lines up with >> Amir's account. > >It doesn't. One thing I managed to understand from Adams' account is that >Bermuda is not at EST but one hour later at GMT-4. This means my timeline and >Mark Crowther's is wrong at several places. So in fact Mig did not offer the >default about 1645 EST, when we were about to start the 2nd game, but at 1600 >EST, i.e. less than 30 minutes after the first game stopped. I now understand >that the 20 minutes delay to start the 2nd game after the draw was concluded at >1640 PM was in fact a timeout by Jarecki and Adams to consider, and when it was >up they decided to insist on the forfeit. To my best knowledge, we and Aviv >knew about the forfeit claim at that point only, though by Adams account Aviv >should have known it an hour earlier. Possibly Aviv did not understand what this >meant the first time he heard it. > >I think it's important to set the record straight, as I and others tried to >reconstruct in detail what happened. Nobody has been lying here, of course, and >in fact there is reasonable agreement between all accounts, and it seems >everybody was trying to be accurate though it was not easy in this case. > >I don't know what this changes in the judgement of these facts. I understand now >that the default was offered and taken up nearly an hour earlier than I thought, >and since the only reason given for it was the "it's getting late" argument, it >only makes it more difficult to understand. This was at a time when Adams could >expect in the normal course of events to be starting the second game, with >perhaps blitz to follow, so why would anyone think this was too late to play ? > >I and Shay made it clear that we don't consider Adams to be the main party at >fault here. He only took what someone offered, but having taken it, he goes too >far in insisting that this was coming to him by right. > >The telling paragraph in his account is "Having thought about the situation I >felt that there should be clarification as to why Deep Junior had not been >forfeited as was stated and asked for an explanation prior to the second game. >Aviv then had a lengthy conversation with Carol Jarecki who fully supported my >position." He does not say why he and Jarecki thought his opponent should be >forfeited, except that this was promised by Mig. > >Amir > > > I think you just have to grow up, and move on. The better you get, the more common this sort of 'anti-computer' nonsense becomes. It happened to me. In 1981 we were invited to a state chess championship, an event we had played in every year for several years in a row. We never did particularly well, and were not a threat. But in 1981 we were running for the first time on a Cray. And we went undefeated and became the first computer to ever win a major tournament, in the open section (not in a class section). The first thing that happened, even though we reminded everyone that we could not (according to USCF rules) take any prizes or money by winning, was that it was pointed out that our computer was not a "mississippi resident" and that we should be thrown out (after the fact) and all our opponents given wins for the games (Cray Blitz didn't lose a game, nor did it draw one). It was nonsensical, and I became convinced that playing in human events was something that was going to become more and more infrequent for us. Your strength was against you. The fact that you were running a computer, a perception that _totally_ overlooks the fact that your team are 'humans', was against you (favor human over machine every time when possible). The deck was stacked. It won't always happen like that... but if you want to play against humans with a strong program/machine, you had best be prepared. It happened to me more than once. The danger is always present, because human egos are very fragile things at times... I personally would have loved to see you play Kasparov, and beat him if possible. :) I really wanted to see who he would rant and rave at if that happened. :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.